U.S. & al-Qa’ida fighting together - Unbelievable

[n david]

They say politics makes for strange bedfellows; but the Syrian civil war takes the cake. The US is actively supporting al-Qa’ida and fighting with them against Syrian President Assad.

If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.

Quite an alliance! Was it not the Three Musketeers who shouted “All for one and one for all” each time they sought combat? This really should be the new battle cry if – or when – the statesmen of the Western world go to war against Bashar al-Assad.

The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama, Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the miniature warlords.

This is infuriating. It's treasonous! Obama is LITERALLY aiding and abetting our declared enemy -- and no one, save a precious few in Congress, is holding him accountable.

There will be some ironies, of course. While the Americans drone al-Qa’ida to death in Yemen and Pakistan – along, of course, with the usual flock of civilians – they will be giving them, with the help of Messrs Cameron, Hollande and the other Little General-politicians, material assistance in Syria by hitting al-Qa’ida’s enemies. Indeed, you can bet your bottom dollar that the one target the Americans will not strike in Syria will be al-Qa’ida or the Nusra front.

Sure, we are told that it will be a short strike on Syria, in and out, a couple of days. That’s what Obama likes to think. But think Iran. Think Hezbollah. I rather suspect – if Obama does go ahead – that this one will run and run.

Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich is right...

“So what, we’re about to become al-Qaeda’s air force now?” Kucinich sarcastically asked The Hill.

He went on to warn against attempting to “minimize” an intervention by terming it a “targeted strike.” Such a strike, he said, would still constitute an act of war.

Kucinich also blasted the Obama administration for “rushing” into what he said could become a third world war, and he cast doubt on reports by rebels of governmental forces using chemical weapons. He declared that the use of chemical weapons in Syria was a “pretext.”

“The verdict is in before the facts have been gathered,” Kucinich said. “What does that tell you?”

SOURCE LINK

What would have happened had W sided with the Taliban or al-Qa’ida when he was President. Oh, there's no question the MSM and Congress would be demanding impeachment and accusing him of treason.

Yet for Obama there's mostly silence.

[Pressing-On]

Brit Hume tweeted this morning - "UN weapons inspectors mission is only to find out IF chemical weapons used but NOT who used them. Are you kidding me?"

He cited this article in his Tweet:

U.S. Talks Tough on Syria, Ramps Up Attack Planning
Syria has denied using chemical weapons, and a Syrian army spokesman said Saturday that it found chemicals in liquid form and U.S.-made gas masks in a rebel hideout. The spokesman said this constituted "definitive proof" that it was rebels who used the chemical weapons last week, not the Syrian military.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...663263254.html

Ben Swann weighs in on the issue as well:

Sec. of State John Kerry Wrong About Syrian Weapons Claim
http://benswann.com/sec-of-state-joh...weapons-claim/

Personally, I feel backing a group that wants to kill Jews and Christians is the intent of the support.

[Pressing-On]

Report: Terrorist Group Behind Benghazi Attack Training Syrian Rebels

Veteran intelligence reporter Bill Gertz says earlier this month U.S. intelligence agencies uncovered new evidence that the al Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Sharia terrorist group is now training Syrian rebels in terrorist training camps. Gertz says the jihadist training camps have been in operation at least since May and "are part of a network that funnels foreign fighters to Syrian rebel groups."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2...-Syrian-Rebels

[Praxeas]

Didn't we make this mistake in Afghanistan with the Russians?

[Aquila]

And this is why mindless followers of political agendas always look stupid. Because the enemy we rant against today... becomes our ally tomorrow. At the end of the day... so much blood is shed... everyone hates everyone else.

[Aquila]

We need to get out of entangling alliances and simply let them fight their own civil war. Then... whoever wins... bomb them to eliminate the WMDs. lol

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Aquila

We need to get out of entangling alliances and simply let them fight their own civil war. Then... whoever wins... bomb them to eliminate the WMDs. lol

Like a previous post eluded too, let both sides fight to the bitter end and when both are down for the count, hopefully their numbers will be SO low that you could send our very own Sheriff Joe and a few of his posse members into the mop up the damage.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by n david

They say politics makes for strange bedfellows; but the Syrian civil war takes the cake. The US is actively supporting al-Qa’ida and fighting with them against Syrian President Assad.


This is infuriating. It's treasonous! Obama is LITERALLY aiding and abetting our declared enemy -- and no one, save a precious few in Congress, is holding him accountable.





Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich is right...




SOURCE LINK

What would have happened had W sided with the Taliban or al-Qa’ida when he was President. Oh, there's no question the MSM and Congress would be demanding impeachment and accusing him of treason.

Yet for Obama there's mostly silence.

GOOD GRIEF DUDE!

We are not fighting with Al-Quaeda!

The President of the United States, the most powerful country in the world, clearly stated before a world audience, that if the Syrian government used chemical weapons, that would be crossing a red line.

WE MUST RESPOND!

As a country, WE MUST RESPOND!
Not only is it the right thing to do, but we have very convincing evidence of this blatant use of WMD against civilians.


So what do you want the President to do, what do you want America to do-- roll over? Turn away?

The world can't afford to let this kind of stuff go unanswered!
It's TIME for AMERICA to lead!

[Jermyn Davidson]

Watched Hannity last night and almost upchucked my dinner!

If President Obama was to look the other way, they would criticize him for diminishing America's reputation for standing up for justice and right. They would criticize him for issuing an "empty threat".


So now that the President and leader of the free world looks like he's going to follow through, he's doing a bad job by getting us drawn into a war.


The same cats that supported GWB's administration, with less evidence!

UNBELIEVABLE-- but nothing my party says or does concerning this President shocks me any more.

So many of them are just so hateful-- as if they forgot their own criticisms of many Democrats being hateful towards GWB without cause.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

GOOD GRIEF DUDE!

We are not fighting with Al-Quaeda!

DUDE, in a way we are. They make up a large part of the "rebels" who are fighting against Assad...we're both arming AND giving support to them; and in a few days will likely become their Air Force. It's not just me, Hannity or other conservatives saying so either. Kucinich was against W's wars and he sees the WH as supporting terrorists as well.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

The President of the United States, the most powerful country in the world, clearly stated before a world audience, that if the Syrian government used chemical weapons, that would be crossing a red line.

WE MUST RESPOND!

As a country, WE MUST RESPOND!
Not only is it the right thing to do, but we have very convincing evidence of this blatant use of WMD against civilians.

Put the pom poms down, DUDE.

Where is this evidence you speak of - this "very convincing evidence?" Post it, so we can see it too.

Obviously you're just taking the WH's word for it, because the UN team hasn't made any determination yet, and there are many statements being made which question whether or not it was indeed Assad's troops or the terrorists who did. IMO, it was the terrorists because they knew it would be the only way to force Obama's hand and give them a clear path to power in Syria.

Let's be clear....there has been absolutely NO evidence showing that it was the Syrian gov't, much less this "very convincing evidence" you claim.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

So what do you want the President to do, what do you want America to do-- roll over? Turn away?

The world can't afford to let this kind of stuff go unanswered!
It's TIME for AMERICA to lead!

Obama was stupid for making the "red line" to begin with. As I've stated over and over again, the US has no interest in the Syrian civil war. In fact, it is very much against the interest of us and our allies (namely Israel) to start any kind of military conflict.

We're not the world's sheriff, policeman, or supervisor. How would you feel if Pakistan said, enough with the drone strikes in our sovereign territory; do it again and Pakistan will strike mainland US military targets? Like it or not, Pakistan has more of a right to do that than we have a right to demand Assad or Syria submit to our wishes.

And be honest, this isn't about America leading... Any strike against Syria is akin to the strike against the aspirin factory during Clinton's administration: just to try and save face. Jay Carney already said the strikes are not to cause a regime change.

Think about that, JD. The US isn't going to strike to cause a regime change, they just want to waste a ton of money lobbing cruise missiles over there because Obama had his bluff called. List anything good which will come of the US lobbing some missiles at targets, and I'll likely double that with a list of problems it will cause.

BTW, be real, the only reason you're sitting in your desk chair cheering this on is because Obama's the President. Had Romney been elected and gone to war against someone, you'd be upset. Especially if he went without any Congressional approval. So you can stop with the whole "America" routine, DUDE.